Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Dr. Hector Avalos recently left a comment on a previous blog post of mine, informing me that he has responded to critiques of an argument of his, namely his argument that arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus can be used to justify the appearances of Mary at Medjugorje. The blog post in question was a draft of my dissertation on the resurrection of Jesus, where I used some of the main arguments, and also included a critique of Avalos' argument. Dr. Avalos' blog post was actually written in response to somebody else, but it nonetheless did address some of the points raised in my blog post, which is why I assume he let me know of such a response. Let's start with a brief summary of the arguments for the historicity of Jesus, followed by a brief summary of Avalos' original argument, followed by a summary of the critique of Avalos' argument. The argument for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is fairly simple: a) there are a set of generally agreed upon facts regarding the life and death of Jesus b) the best explanation of these facts is the hypothesis that the God of Israel resurrected Jesus. These facts are: a) Jesus was crucified b) Jesus was buried in a tomb c) the tomb was later found empty d) people later saw visions of the risen Jesus. It is argued that the resurrection hypothesis satisfies the criteria for the best explanation. Those criteria being: a) explanatory scope b) explanatory power c) plausibility d) less ad-hoc e) disconfirmed by fewer existing beliefs. A second argument is that: a) Christianity was massively offensive to 1st century socio-cultural values, and got its followers persecuted b) despite this massive obstacle, Christianity nonetheless spread and thrived c) there therefore had to have been some kind of convincing evidence that Christianity was true to persuade so many people.

Avalos' counter is that the appearances of Mary at Medjugorje satisfy the criteria for the best explanation, which is something that a protestant such as William Lane Craig would not want to accept. The first major problem with such an argument is that, if true, would do nothing whatsoever to undermine the argument for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. At worst, it would demonstrate that those who accept the resurrection of Jesus but deny the reality of the appearances of Mary were simply employing double standards. Yet, this would do nothing to impact their arguments. To suggest otherwise would simply be an argument ad hominem. However, it has not escaped notice that the Marian apparitions do not even come close meeting the criteria for the best explanation. There are at least four generally agreed upon facts that can be used to infer the historicity of the resurrection, yet there are none for the assumption of Mary. The doctrine of the assumption of Mary was not developed until the 5th century AD, whereas belief in Jesus’ resurrection has been an integral part of Christianity since its beginning. There are no sources that directly state Mary was assumed, whereas we have numerous sources that state Jesus was resurrected. Roughly 500 people were said to have seen the risen Christ, whereas only six people were said to have seen Mary at Medjugorje. The belief in the assumption of Mary has been around for hundreds of years prior to the reported sightings of Mary, whereas the disciples had no such prior belief that Jesus would be resurrected prior to their visionary experiences. Mary made no radical personal claims, whereas Jesus did. It was concluded by the Catholic Church that supernatural appearances were NOT occurring here.

What then, does Avalos have to say in response? One of his main points is that we must take into account the earliest interview recordings, as most of the standard accounts are based on later interviews conducted years after the events. It is interesting that Avalos brings up this point, when the accounts that ignore these earlier recordings consist mostly, if not entirely of accounts that argue in favour of the authenticity of these apparitions. Indeed, one of the works that does take into account these earlier recordings, Medjugorje Revisited: 30 years of Visions or Religious Fraud? by Donal Foley, indicates crucial differences between these early and later accounts that casts serious doubt over the authenticity of the apparitions. Indeed, the precise nature of these earlier accounts stand in direct contrast to what Avalos says they reveal, as we shall see later on. One of Avalos' initial points is that one of the biggest sceptics of the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje was Pavao Zaniç, the local bishop. Avalos claims that this is akin to the Jewish authorities being harsh critics of Jesus and early Christianity, but is this really the case? First of all, Zanic was a Catholic bishop who accepted Catholic Marian doctrines beforehand. The Marian apparitions at Medjugorje fit in with said Catholic doctrines, whereas Jesus' teachings, and the belief in his resurrection represent a sharp break from the standard Jewish beliefs of the day. Secondly, Zaniç was initially open to the possibility of these apparitions being genuine, but began having serious doubts over a period of time. Whereas the Jewish critics of Jesus and Christianity were openly hostile from the outset.

Avalos goes on to say that the witnesses were subjected to medical and scientific analysis in 1984, and their apparitions were deemed not being the result of hallucinations. Deceit and drug usage were similarly ruled out as possible natural explanations. However, I find it odd that Avalos would mention these results, without discussing the results of earlier analyses. Indeed, the earlier transcripts to which Avalos refers reveal that the visionaries were subjected to police interrogation and medical inspection at Čitluk a mere three days after the apparitions, and were subject to medical inspection two days later. These earlier analyses were inconclusive, although they did ascertain that these visions were not pathological in nature, but that their 'ecstasies' weren't genuine. The study that Avalos references was one led by Dr. Henri Joyeux, and it seems as if there are some problems with it that cast suspicion on their results. Firstly, only one member of the team was in any way qualified to make professional medical pronouncements on the functioning of the human nervous system, namely Dr Jean Cadhilhac, a neuro-physicist. The conclusions reached regarding the possibility of hallucinations, etc. would have required a full team of such specialists, including psychiatrists and psychologists. Secondly, there is evidence that Dr Joyeux had close ties with the Charismatic Renewal movement that had taken hold over the Catholic population of Medjugorje. This is important because, as Foley explains, such ties would have coloured Dr. Joyeux's attitude towards the visionaries, for reasons explained earlier in his book.

Avalos makes the claim that these witnesses have therefore been subjected to more scientific and medical probing than any of the witnesses to the resurrection. However, it seems as if the scientific and medical analyses conducted so far have not been as thorough, nor have they been as conclusive as one would like. Indeed, Bishop Zaniç wrote to Laurentin stating that he was concerned regarding the possibility of simulation, and whilst Laurentin stated that their study ruled out such a possibility, there is no actual clear indication that any tests were carried out by the team lead by Dr. Joyeux in regards to this issue. Their reports further indicate further problems, which Foley cites, such as difficulty with communicating via translators, as well as difficulty with transporting their equipment from France. Thus, it seems clear that practical as well as ideological considerations make Joyeux's study less than meticulous. Avalos also makes the bizarre suggestion that willingness to suffer persecution and death for following Christianity is historically unconfirmed. This flies in the face of everything we known about 1st Century Near East and Mediterranean socio-cultural values.

A socially-deviant movement such as Christianity would have attracted persecution from the get-go:

"The group would exercise measures designed to shame the transgressor (whether through insult, reproach, physical abuse, confiscation of property – at worst, execution) so that the transgressor would be pressured into returning to the conduct the group approved (if correction were possible) and so that group members would have their aversion to committing such transgressions themselves strongly reinforced." - David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, InterVarsity Press, (2000), p36

"That there was an intrinsic incompatibility between Christianity and classical values was apparent from the time Romans became aware of the presence of the new religion. Christians were criticized on a variety of grounds, but principally because they had rejected the gods of their ancestors and the civic values of the Greco-Roman world. Their religion was new; they had turned away from the traditions of their immediate ancestors, the Jews… In short, they did not fit into the system that had been sanctioned by centuries of classical use." - D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burstein, The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History, Third Edition, Pearson, New Jersey (2006), p314-315

Not forgetting, of course, the persecution of Christians by Nero as recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus, or the persecution of Christians at the hands of Pliny the Younger, who stated that those who confessed to being Christians were punished, with the Emperor Trajan commending Pliny for his actions. Thus, to argue that only six martyrdoms in the first 250 years of Christian history can be treated as historically reliable is simply false. Avalos also claims that the spread of belief in the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje greatly exceeds spread of belief in the risen of Jesus. However, this is ignoring the fact that the millions of pilgrims to Medjugorje were devout Catholics whereas people were converting to Christianity from belief systems that were hostile to it, and in a society whose socio-cultural values were fundamentally at odds with the central tenets and teachings of the Christian faith.

Dr. Avalos questions the source material used by Travis James Campbell, the author to whom Avalos is responding in his blog. Namely, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary by Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples. Avalos complains that these authors are well-known Protestant evangelical scholars, with a foreword by well-known evangelical apologist Norman Geisler. Avalos says that Miller and Samples' suggestion that the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje were, in fact, Satanic occurrences, is no different than the claims from the Jewish authorities that Jesus was possessed by Be-el'zebub. Of course, the Jewish authorities weren't suggesting demonic activity as an explanation for Jesus' resurrection, but his miraculous deeds. We aren't talking about Jesus' alleged miracle working here, we are talking about his resurrection, and Avalos' whole argument is in reply to arguments in favour of the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish authorities' response to claims of Jesus' resurrection was that the disciples stole the body, a very naturalistic hypothesis. It is also ironic how Avalos questions Campbell's reliance on Miller and Samples, when he bases his claim regarding medical and scientific evaluations of the visionaries purely on the report of Laurentin and Joyeux, who had ideological ties that throws their objectivity into doubt.

Avalos continues by claiming that the minimal facts used by Campbell, myself and others are not facts at all, and claims that appeals to a consensus is nothing more than a shorthand for saying that there is a consensus amongst Christian scholars. This is, of course, patently false, and a blatantly obvious mischaracterisation. The consensus appealed to consists of scholars from a wide diversity of backgrounds and beliefs, not just Christians. Virtually every critical scholar accepts the historicity of Christ's crucifixion, his burial, and that the disciples had visionary experiences that they believed and proclaimed to be appearances of the risen Christ. Dr. Gary Habermas has spent quite some time analysing publications on the subject of the resurrection of Jeus from 1975 to roughly the present day, and has noted that roughly 75% of all critical scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb, whereas 25% do not. To suggest that to appeal to such a scholarly consensus is to cite Islamic scholars for the veridicality of Islam, or Catholic scholars on the truth of Mariological doctrines is simply dishonest. This is also not even bothering to take into account the arguments presented for the historicity of these things. Avalos further compounds his error by claiming that the historicity of the empty tomb cannot be called a fact because it cannot be verified with either logic or any of our five sense, which is simply nothing but outdated verificationism.

Avalos then continues by grossly misrepresenting the case for the historicity of the empty tomb employed by Craig, myself, et al. Avalos claims that what Christian apologists are really saying is that the resurrection happened, because source X says it happened, and that this raises the question of why we should trust source X about the resurrection, but not the visionaries about the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje. This completely ignores the arguments in favour of the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament source material, not to mention the arguments in favour of the historicity of the 'minimal facts' employed that aren't even dependant on the NT sources being inherently reliable. I find it odd how Avalos argues that Craig, Campbell, and others argue that the empty tomb is a fact because it is stated in a source they find credible, when William Lane Craig has explicitly stated:

"Even documents which are generally unreliable may contain valuable historical nuggets, and it will be the historian's task to mine these documents in order to discover. The Christian apologist seeking to establish, for example, the historicity of the empty tomb need not and should not be saddled with the task of first showing that the Gospels are, in general, historically reliable documents." - William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, Crossway, (2008), p11

In other words, the reliability is not integral to the case for the historicity of the empty tomb. Craig uses a handful of historical criteria employed by critical scholars to judge the truth of individual elements within the New Testament narrative. He does not argue that the empty tomb is historical purely because he finds the New Testament reports credible and reliable. Avalos' contention that the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje pass the criteria for the best explanation thus rests upon a deliberate mischaracterisation of the argument for the historicity of the resurrection.

This complaint of Avalos' similarly ignores critiques of the alleged Marian apparitions at Medjugorje, some of which come from Catholics. For example, Donal Foley notes multiple problems with the reports, as well as the medical/scientific reports conducted by Dr. Joyeux. Avalos would need to show that the arguments made for the historicity of the minimal 'facts,' can be used to justify a core of minimal facts related to the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje, and then demonstrate that the best explanation is that the visions were genuine. Avalos continues by further mischaracterising Campbell's case against the veridicality of the Marian appearances at Medjugorje. He says that Campbell rejects the account of Mary's bodily resurrection purely because it is apocryphal, but there are apocryphal accounts treated as historical by New Testament writers, namely the assumption of Moses. Avalos asks if apocryphal material can transmit historical data, what makes Marian reports apocryphal and the Jesus stories not. The problem is that Campbell is not dismissing accounts regarding Mary because they are apocryphal, but is rather noting a key distinction between the quality of the source evidence between the accounts on Jesus and the accounts on Mary. One of the historical criteria used to support the historicity of the minimal facts is the fact that they are multiply attested in a variety of early sources. Furthermore, noting that there are apocryphal accounts that may contain historical truths in them does nothing to demonstrate the quality of the Marian accounts, and so to appeal to such other accounts is simply a red herring. If Avalos wants to convince us that such Marian accounts are on the same standing as the source material on the resurrection, then he needs to actually show it.

Avalos' next complaint is that Campbell places a temporal limit on appearances, judging them not to be credible if they arose a certain amount of time after that person's death, yet there are accounts in the New Testament of post-mortem appearances of the figures Moses and Elijah who had been deceased for centuries prior to the 1st Century AD. This is simply misconstruing what Campbell and other apologists are arguing. The closeness of the disciples' experiences to the death and burial of Jesus is important because Jesus' body would have still been in the tomb had he not risen from the dead. In other words, people could have checked to see if Jesus' tomb was actually empty. Now, the examples Avalos cites could very well be genuine, but clearly not for the same reasons given in defence of the resurrection of Jesus. Secondly, Campbell is not dismissing other accounts because they are a significant amount of time after the death of the individual believed to have appeared. He is simply noting that Avalos' comparison in his original argument is invalid in this regard. Furthermore, the disciples' encountering what they believed to be the risen Jesus is only one of the minimal facts appealed to in defence of the resurrection. The arguments Avalos is appealing to are used to justify the truth of the minimal facts, not the resurrection, and so Avalos' counter-argument here is simply an invalid comparison once again. Avalos continues to make the absurd argument that, if Mary is as alive as Moses, Elijah, and as alive as angels, such as Gabriel, then there should be no theological objection to the continued existence of Mary. He furthermore makes appeals to Luke 20:34-38 to justify his claim that the dead are regarded the same as angels in Christian belief. It is simplistic statements such as these that lead me to question Dr. Avalos' understanding of Christian and Jewish theology.

Unfortunately for Dr. Avalos, the resurrection of the dead is believed by both Jews and Christians to occur at the end of time, i.e. when God brings about the day of judgment, and creates a new heaven and a new earth, etc. As such, there is the question of the state of one's existence between one's physical death and one's physical resurrection. The short answer is that we simply don't know, since there is no clear indication in the text of the New Testament itself. The passage that Avalos refers to is describing what it will be like for the resurrected, i.e. those who have received new bodies at the end of time. From what I have read, the leading opinion is simply that the dead will exist in some kind of disembodied state, either conscious or unconscious, until God provides them with new bodies. The view of heaven as a place of people lounging around on clouds is a modern invention that has no basis in historical Christianity or Judaism. As such, since Elijah and Moses were both bodily assumed into heaven, then that would allow for them to appear before Jesus and his disciples in the New Testament accounts. Thus, such an objection rests on a faulty understanding of the fate of the dead in Christian and Jewish belief, not to mention the equivocation of different states of existence between death and resurrection. One existing after death is not enough to grant them the ability of appearing to the living post-mortem in Jewish and Christian belief. Indeed, when the disciples first saw the risen Jesus, they assumed that it was Jesus' 'ghost,' i.e. not Jesus himself, but a being from the spirit world.

Avalos' next argument is that there is no historical evidence that supports the claim that belief in the risen Jesus was crystallised in an early creed. He seems to think that, because the manuscripts we have date centuries after the events, we cannot admit the Corinthians creed as being early, since they are not contemporary. This is nothing more than a palpable and blatant falsehood that betrays Avalos' ignorance of the relevant scholarship on this subject:

"In the case of 1 Cor 15:3ff., critical scholars agree that Paul’s reception of at least the core of this proclamation, and probably the creed itself, go back to the mid-AD 30s, when he spent two weeks with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. But these two apostles had the material before Paul did, and the events behind the reports are earlier still. This is probably the chief argument that persuades the majority of scholars today that the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection originated in the earliest church. Virtually all critical scholars think this message began with the real experiences of Jesus’ earliest disciples, who thought they had seen appearances of their risen Lord. It did not arise at some later date. Nor was it borrowed or invented." - Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus Time Line, from Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, eds., Contending With Christianity’s Critics, B&H Publishing Group, (2009), p125

Avalos might be operating under the delusion that immediate veridicality and contemporaneity are required components of historical reasoning, but real historians know otherwise. Documents can contain oral formulas that originated far earlier than the document itself, and historical analysis can reveal such oral formulas, such as the creed in 1 Corinthians 15. That the documents date a few decades later, and the earliest manuscripts date a few centuries later, does nothing to change this. It thus seems as if Avalos is fundamentally ignorant regarding textual analysis and criticism of the New Testament, as well as the arguments actual critical scholars make.

Avalos continues by arguing that an actual creed regarding the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje crystallised within 5-6 years of the alleged appearances there. The problem with such an argument is that, even if this were the case, this completely ignores other factors, such as willingness to endure persecution, criterion of embarrassment and so on, not to mention the clear and obvious differences in socio-cultural context. However, let us assume that such a creed exists, and that it passes these other criteria. All this would do is show that the believers in the Marian apparitions were sincere in their belief. What Avalos seems to be oblivious of is that the earliness of the creed is but one piece of historical data used to justify the claim that belief in the risen Christ was early, widespread and sincere, and that, moreover, the early, sincere, widespread belief in the risen Jesus is merely one of the minimal facts used to infer the resurrection of Jesus. Of course, there is clear and obvious evidence that the visionaries who claimed to have seen Mary were not sincere, whereas there is good evidence that the disciples were sincere. Furthermore, belief in the risen Christ spread in an environment completely hostile to Christianity and the idea of bodily resurrection, and in a socio-cultural environment where critical scrutiny over the lives of others was a part of daily life, meaning the empty tomb, etc. would have been checked.

Avalos' next argument makes more sense, and that is the argument that belief in Marian apparitions aren't dependent on the dogma of the assumption of Mary. Indeed, belief in Jesus' resurrection did not arise until the disciples had encounters with what they believed was the risen Christ. Someone could feasibly have an encounter with the still living Mary, which would lead them to believe in the assumption of Mary. However, when we survey the Old and New Testaments, as well as inter-testamental and other extra-biblical Jewish and Christian documents, the dead typically only appear to the living if they have undergone some form of vindication. Simply using this as an argument against Avalos' would be begging the question, however. Nonetheless, such a fact does raise the salient point that there needs to be an explanation of how the dead can appear to the living, if we were to hypothetically assume such appearances to be genuine. For example, Jesus was able to appear to the disciples because he had been resurrected. Remember, the appearances of Jesus are one of the facts used to infer the resurrection. We need not assume them genuine, merely that the visionaries are honest (and there is good evidence that the disciples were honest.) It thus seems as if Avalos' comparisons are invalid, since the disciples' experiences are part of the evidence appealed to infer the resurrection, yet Avalos is saying that the Medjugorje visionaries' experiences can be used to infer that their experiences were genuine. The arguments of Christian apologists Avalos says can be used to justify the Marian apparitions are arguments used to establish that such a belief existed and was sincere, so Avalos is clearly muddled on this issue.

Avalos next points to cases he feels are examples of Marian apparitions occurring prior to the inception of the Marian assumption doctrine. Interestingly, if a little odd, is his suggestion that Revelation 12:1-6 is a New Testament account of an appearance, or at the least could be interpreted that way by believers in Marian appearances. Is there any actual evidence that favours such a hypothesis? The problem is, however, is that Avalos offers no textual analysis that even so much as renders such an interpretation compatible with the text. Indeed, such a suggestion carries no weight whatsoever unless Avalos can show that this is what the text meant, citing actual textual data, such as literary genre, and background socio-cultural data. Unlike the Gospels, which are ancient biographies (bioi), Revelation belongs to a genre referred to as 'Apocalyptic Literature,' and thus Revelation is an Apocalypse, which is why it is sometimes referred to as the 'Apocalypse of John.' Notable features of this genre include the prominent utilisation of metaphors and similar literary devices, and the heavy use of symbolism. How 21st century Westerners interpret the text matters little if such interpretations don't take into account what the author meant. Indeed, what the author meant is the only meaningful interpretation, since anything else is just reading what one wants into the text. Thus, literary genre, etc. are of utmost importance if we are aiming for accurate exegesis, rather than inaccurate eisegesis. Indeed, I find it amusing that Avalos suggests belief in the continued existence of Mary is comparable to belief in the Trinity, asserting that modern Christians read the Trinity into the text of the New Testament because the Trinity was not affirmed as dogma until 325 AD. Again, simple suggestion is meaningless. What we need is actual exegesis based on actual literary and socio-cultural data.

Another notable feature, of course, involved the author experiencing some kind of vision, typically involving being transported to heaven. The problem, however, is that such visions are not of the same category of the reports of Jesus' appearances, or of the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje. The appearances of Jesus and the appearances of Mary both took place on Earth and in the present, whereas the type of vision described in Revelation was a transportation to heaven itself, where the author experiences prophetic visions, i.e. visions of the what is to happen in the future. Seeing an apparition of someone alive on Earth is very different from having a vision of someone in heaven. If I were to come up to someone and tell them I saw someone who had died three days ago, we both could go and check where they were buried. Moreover, given the symbolic nature of the prophetic visions, which, as aforementioned, represent future phenomenon, it seems odd why the woman would be used to represent Mary, rather than, say Israel, or the Church, given the centrality of eschatology in Apocalyptic Literature. It also seems odd how the woman in Revelation goes unidentified by the author, if it was indeed meant to represent Mary, given Mary's prominence in Roman Catholicism. Avalos suggests Protestants are selective if they interpret this passage symbolically, whilst interpreting other parts as representing reality. Not being a Protestant, I'm not sure how such a criticism would apply to myself. Either way, such a complaint is ironic, given that it indicates that Dr. Avalos seems totally unaware of the literary features of Apocalyptic Literature, since one of them is the heavy use of symbolism in order to represent future phenomenon. Why Dr. Avalos would think an interpretation of the text that doesn't involve the woman being Mary could emphasise symbolism, but not reality, thus seems very strange.

Avalos, however, does point to a 4th century account of a vision that occurred in the third century to Gregory Thaumaturgus, also known as Gregory the Wonderworker. Indeed, the account Avalos cites is earlier than the earliest iterations of belief in the assumption of Mary. However, Gregory's belief is based upon the heterodox belief that one existed as an immortal spirit being after death, an inheritance from his pagan heritage. Whereas, in orthodox Christian belief, the dead who exist in a disembodied state cannot return to Earth. Only those who had been subject to some form of vindication. So, whilst Avalos is correct in that not all Marian apparitions are based upon belief in the assumption of Mary, it is still a false comparison once again. Secondly, the all-important question of expectation is a particular problem here, since such visions did not defy Gregory's beliefs or prior expectations. Belief in resurrection in general was not particularly widespread, and amongst those Jews who did believe in resurrection, it was held that it would only occur at the end of time for all righteous dead. Avalos, howeverm challenges the idea that the visionaries at Medjugorje had a prior belief in Marian apparitions, citing their testimony, notably that of Mirjana Dragicevic, where they all claim to have no prior knowledge of the doctrine of the assumption of Mary, or even famous instances of Marian apparitions/miracles such as Fatima or Lourdes. He also claims that there were prior resurrection traditions in the 1st century AD that could have influences the disciples.

It seems as if Avalos is not acquainted with the source material he claims Campbell is ignorant of, since in Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud? author Donal Foley cites Fr. Ivo Sivic, author of The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, who reveals that according to Marija Pavlovic (one of the Medjugorje visionaries), Fr. Vlasic knew one month in advance and mentioned to the visionaries that 'the Gospa' would begin appearing in Yugoslavia. Vlasic had previously attended an important Charismatic conference in Rome shortly before the appearances started occurring. During said conference, he asked some of the leaders to pray with him for the healing of the Church in Yugoslavia. During their prayers, at least two of those present began prophesying that Vlasic would be seated in a chair before a great crowd at a twin-towered Church (an obvious reference to St. James' parish church at Medjugorje), and that Christ would send His mother in advance. How then, can Avalos say that the visionaries did not have any prior expectations if they were told beforehand by Fr. Vlasic that Mary would begin appearing soon? Even aside from this, there is every bit of evidence that the visionaries were fed suggestive ideas utilising charismatic worship methods that can allow for manipulation of individuals. Furthermore, the visionaries themselves were emotionally unstable individuals, and thus more susceptive to such suggestion and manipulation. Thus, Avalos' claims here are clearly contradicted by the available evidence, from sources Avalos himself mentions explicitly.

What then about Avalos' second claims that there were 1st century resurrection traditions that could have influences New Testament beliefs? He specifically cites an example in the New Testament itself where Herod is said to have initially be John the Baptist come back from the dead, as well as Jesus indicating that John the Baptist was supposed to be a "reincarnation" of Elijah. However, Avalos is simply equivocating here between different modes of vindication. Resurrection was a specific mode of vindication that was not just a simple return to life from death, but a transformation into an immortal form. By trying to say resurrection was anticipated from examples of people returning to life from death but without being gloriously transformed is simply invalid. Avalos also notes that there were sayings and deeds of Jesus not recorded in the New Testament that could have led to at least some of the disciples anticipating resurrection. However, this ignores the clear examples in the New Testament that clearly indicates that the disciples were not expecting Jesus to be vindicated at all, let alone resurrected. After all, they were all said to have fled, and even Peter denied Christ three times. In fact, it is recorded that the only reason the male disciples discovered Jesus' resurrection at all was because the female disciples went to the tomb to mourn and came back to tell the male disciples who initially did not believe them.

Avalos next refers to Campbell's usage of Ott, who is quoted by Campbell as saying that there is no direct, scriptural proofs of the assumption of Mary. Avalos questions whether such direct and scriptural proofs are needed, and argues that Ott is not saying that there isn't any indirect proof for the assumption of Mary. This is actually something I agree with Avalos on, although I would like to add that the word 'proof' is being used inaccurately. There is not direct and/or scriptural EVIDENCE for the assumption of Mary, but this does not mean that there is no indirect and/or non-scriptural evidence that could be used to infer the assumption. Unlike most Evangelicals, I do not hold the Bible to necessarily be infallible or even necessarily divinely inspired. I personally place such value on the New Testament documents in historically inferring the resurrection PURELY because they are the closest sources we have to the events. However, I feel other evidence CAN be used, whether it be non-scriptural, indirect, etc. So, if there is a case for the assumption of Mary, it can't be as strong as the case for the resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, simply speculating isn't enough, such a case would have to be provided. Thus, whilst Avalos is correct here, it does nothing to undermine the case for the resurrection of Jesus, nor does it bolster the case for the assumption of Mary.

Avalos next discusses Campbell's usage of Epiphanius, pointing out that Epiphanius was open to the possibility that Mary was still alive, despite his declaration that nobody, in fact, knew Mary's fate. This is a fair point, however, Avalos quotes Epiphanius referring to a heretical form of Mary whereby worshippers would offer loaves of bread to Mary as evidence of belief that Mary was still alive. This is, once again, nothing more than simple equivocation. In what sense is Mary believed to be alive? Is she believed to be an immortal spirit existing solely in the spiritual realm? Is she believed to be bodily existing in heaven? Offering of sacrifices says nothing to us about whether or not worshippers believed Mary was capable of appearing either physically or spiritually. It is also puzzling why Avalos thinks 3rd/4th century heretical beliefs are "early." Belief in Jesus' resurrection was instantaneous, began in the region Jesus was executed in, and spread throughout the Jews before rapidly spreading across Gentile populations. Assuming this heretical group believed Mary existed in a form that allowed to her make appearances to those still alive on Earth, such a belief did not form during Mary's lifetime nor even in the 1st century, nor did it originate in Judea. It thus seems as if all Dr. Avalos is doing is selecting just one of the criteria offered in defence of a 'minimal fact' or the resurrection itself in isolation at a time, and then applying it loosely to cases that are incongruent with the other criteria.

Avalos next complains that the argument that Mary made no radical personal claims about herself is 'bizarre.' He says that surely Mary's claim of being the virgin mother of Christ counts as a radical personal claims, and secondly asks why radical personal claims should be a mark of historicity at all. I can only wonder where in the New Testament documents Mary publicly claims her status as the virgin mother of Christ? Whereas there are clear examples of Jesus making messianic claims in the New Testament. The New Testament authors certainly claim that Mary is the virgin mother of Christ, but where are there examples of Mary making such claims herself? Avalos is thus rather muddled regarding this particular issue as he seems to think that people making claims about others constitutes that person making personal radical claims themselves. Furthermore, he does seem to realise that it is only PUBLIC claims we are discussing here. Lastly, his complaint that radical personal claims being irrelevant to historicity simply betrays his ignorance on the subject. Has Avalos not read the works of those he presumes to correct? For example, William Lane Craig writes:

"Radical critics deny that the historical Jesus thought of himself as the divine Son of God... The big problem with this hypothesis is that it is inexplicable how monotheistic Jews could have attributed divinity to a man they had known, if he never claimed any such things himself."

Now, Avalos could dispute such a line of argument, yet it just simply seems as if he is entirely ignorant of such a line of reasoning, which is very odd considering he has written a response to William Lane Craig's work in his book The End of Biblical Studies, and it is this response that Campbell was responding to in Holding's Defending the Resurrection.

Avalos' next line of argument is to question Campbell's dismissal of the apparitions at Medjugorje as being unreal. Avalos claims that the initial appearances on the hillside are of a different nature to the appearances that occurred later, and thus is akin to the differences between the experience of the disciples and the apostle Paul. He says that, whilst there are those who may have had direct empirical evidence of the second encounters, they had no such evidence for the initial encounters. Furthermore, Avalos opines that these secondary apparitions are consistent with a God who does not reveal Himself in the same manner to everybody, citing Numbers 12:6-8 and the account of Paul's roadside encounter in Acts 9:3-7 and Acts 22:9, and the account of Stephen's vision in Acts 7:55-57. It is odd how Avalos claims that the later appearances are different from the earlier appearances, when he goes on to argue later on that the visionaries used "objective language" to describe all of their experiences. This is further compounded Avalos' complaint that the encounter witnessed by Kenneth Samples' could have been the type of encounters experienced by Paul and Stephen, and that Samples' dismissal is somehow a problem. On the one hand, Avalos wants to have us believe that the visionaries experiences were equal in both sets of instances, yet he is simultaneously suggesting that such visions could be different in nature.

Moreover, Avalos' suggestion that the encounter witnessed by Samples is akin to the experiences of Paul and Stephen, aside from contradicting his assertions of uniformity amongst visions, serves to undercut his argument that the apparitions of Mary at Medjugorje are akin to the appearances of Jesus in the New Testament, and is simply an invalid comparison. In the account of Paul's experience, whilst Paul's companions do not see or hear Jesus, they nonetheless perceive a bright light. Whereas in Samples' encounter, he saw nothing at all. Whereas the account of Stephen is that of a vision accessible only to Stephen, which strikes me as odd considering Avalos is trying to convince us that the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje are of the same type as the appearances of Jesus to the disciples. Avalos is thus clearly equivocating between different types of post-mortem appearances as if they were one and the same. On one hand, we have the resurrected Jesus appearing physically before his disciples, on another we have the ascended resurrected Jesus appearing to Paul whilst appearing only as a bright light to Paul's companion, and lastly we have the ascended resurrected Jesus appearing in a vision only Stephen can actually see. It does not matter if these appearances are consistent with other Biblical accounts, since we are discussing the account of Jesus' resurrection exclusively.

Avalos continues on to argue that the visionaries believed themselves to have had actual encounters with Mary, rather than simply visions, or a physical encounter whereby Mary appeared to different people in different ways, vis a vis Paul's roadside encounter. The problem is that this directly contradicts Avalos' earlier statements, as aforementioned. That aside, such an argument is problematic in that the transcripts of the recording of the earliest interviews that Avalos himself refers to directly refute such a claim. Indeed, the transcripts reveal that the visions are nothing like the appearances of Jesus before the disciples at all. The first vision allegedly took place whilst Ivanka Ivankovic and Mirjana Dragicevic were walking along a road near Bijakovici. However, whilst Ivanka claimed that she could see 'the Gospa,' Mirjana was apparently uncertain. Later on that day, they climbed up to Podbrdo where they apparently saw a vision. Two men were nearby, Ivan Dragicevic, whom they called up to see the vision with them, and another man, Ivan Ivankovic, who dissociated himself from the visionaries. Ivan Dragicevic reveals that the other two called to him, saying that 'the Gospa' had appeared, but states that he 'saw the light,' and apparently had a very hard time articulating what it was he actually saw. Then there is the fact that Ivanka and Mirjana had gone to Podbrdo to smoke, but explicitly lied about it, denying that they smoked at all for quite some time. As Donal Foley notes, this calls into question their credibility.

Bizarrely enough, Avalos argues that Jesus possessing certain abilities, such as keeping those around Him from recognising Him, could be what happened at Medjugorje when Samples witnessed an alleged encounter and yet saw nothing. This is once again Avalos simply equivocating between different types of appearances as if they were all interchangeable. Jesus' ability to prevent the disciples from recognising him was an ability gained (presumably) through resurrection. Jesus is still physically located on earth in a specific geo-temporal location in our space-time. In the case of Stephen, only he can see Jesus, who is in heaven, and is thus a vision, NOT an appearance as Avalos suggests. The case of Paul, however, is more interesting, in that, whilst Jesus had at that point ascended into heaven, he nonetheless manifests Himself physically before Paul. The reason why it is physical is because Paul's companions can actually see Jesus. They simply cannot hear him, and Jesus is presumably using his supernatural abilities to prevent them from making out his distinct form. Thus, he would seem like just a bright light to them, which is what the New Testament describes. Out of these three examples, the 'encounter' witnessed by Samples is most like Stephen's, with the only difference being that the visionary claimed that the figure being perceived was actually in the same room as them, as opposed to somewhere else, such as heaven.

Avalos continues by complaining about "biased Protestant apologetics" and that Campbell, Samples, et al. hold different standards to Medjugorje than those they apply to the New Testament. However, as we have seen, Avalos either does not understand the standards being employed to assess the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, or is deliberately distorting them. Avalos has made no real attempt to cement a core group of minimal facts about the appearances at Medjugorje except for the most superficial of comparisons to New Testament and other Biblical accounts that don't stand up to scrutiny once examined. Indeed, one wonders if Avalos even grasps the case being made by scholars such as William Lane Craig at all? For those not familiar with the case for the resurrection, as well as for those who struggle with things of any length, I shall give a brief outline. A core group of 'minimal facts' are put forward, with a variety of arguments put forward for their historicity utilising historical criteria. These facts usually involve at least Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and the subsequent post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The criteria put forward by McCullagh and utilised by William Lane Craig, et al. is the criteria used to assess hypotheses, with hypotheses being the explanation of the facts.

However, Avalos has literally done nothing whatsoever to deal with arguments in favour of the 'minimal facts,' but has simply hand-waved them away with the flimsiest of excuses, and just posited any old claims as 'facts' with little to no argument whatsoever. Is this the hallmark of a critical scholar? In fact, it almost seems as if the writings of Dr. Avalos are nothing more than a collection of unsustainable reactionary opinions seemingly written to a deadline on Debunking Christianity, almost as if they weren't even real. Avalos claims that the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje meet the criteria of McCullagh, but the problems posited by Campbell, Samples, Miller, Foley, et al. all still stand. Where are the generally agreed upon facts about the apparitions at Medjugorje that the hypothesis allegedly explains? Moreover, where are the historical arguments? Avalos has done none of these things, and based his argument purely on a mischaracterisation of the case for the resurrection of Jesus. I'm not even sure why the historicity of Marian apparitions would be problematic, since they pose no direct contradictions to the central claims of Christianity. If Protestants continued denying them, then that would make them hypocritical, but that would do literally nothing to undermine the case for the resurrection of Jesus, since truth is not determined by the mental state of the arguer. In other words, trying to dismiss somebody's argument because they are hypocrite is nothing more than an argument ad hominem.

Sunday, 26 May 2013

Introduction
The origins of Christianity are a subject that has attracted a considerable amount of ink over the past few centuries. For believers and non-believers alike it is a subject of great interest, but also controversy. Frequently, we hear of sensationalist books declaring some new theory about Jesus and the origins of Christianity, some fringe authors even declaring that Jesus was a mythological figure based on pagan deities. Whilst any full study would take multiple books, my focus in writing this dissertation will be on the socio-cultural background of the 1st century. This is a subject that has been oft neglected, and few scholars in recent years have attempted to tackle with these issues. One of the biggest problems of studying early Christianity is that many scholars have approached it from a 21st century Western perspective. It might seem obvious to the point of being trivial, but 1st century Greco-Roman social and cultural values were different.

Some scholars, however, have attempted to get closer to the 1st century mindset. It might seem initially surprising, but a number of American evangelical scholars have stressed various differences between 1st century culture and our own, such as a low view on women.[1] British scholar and former Bishop, N. T. Wright, in his work The Resurrection of the Son of God, has offered a comprehensive survey of Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs from the Old Testament period, up until the New Testament period.[2] A number of scholars, including but not limited to Richard Bauckham and Michael Licona, have compared the Gospels to other written works from the same time period.[3] The problem with these writers is that these elements are only bought up in isolation, or are not the main focus. One group of scholars, however, known as the ‘Context Group’ have published a series of commentaries and volumes exploring 1st century culture.[4]

The use of social science, however, has often been viewed with suspicion by theological faculties. This is presumably down to the fact that a number of non-Christian scholars have attempted a socio-cultural understanding of Jesus and produced results that conflict with these departments’ articles of faith. For instance, John Dominic Crossan claims Jesus as a Cynic Sage,[5] whereas Bart Ehrman claims Jesus as apocalyptic prophet who believed the world was to end imminently within his own lifetime.[6] One author has even attempted to analyse Christianity in Marxist terms as an outlook that arose through class struggle.[7] I share their concerns, not because I am interested in upholding articles of faith (although I am myself a believer) but because the conclusions of these scholars are often at odds with the facts, and sometimes are contrary to their own methodologies.

It is my intent to provide a general survey of 1st century social and cultural values, from Christian and non-Christian sources. In the first chapter, I shall explore general features that were common to all societies within the region of the Near East and Mediterranean, looking at sources from the first couple of centuries. In the second chapter, I shall explore Christianity’s relation to those values and see how this impacted its development. For example, how would a 1st century Jew, or a 1st century Roman react upon hearing the Gospel message? How compatible was Christianity with these values, if at all? It is these questions that I aim to answer, and whilst I suspect some of my conclusions will no doubt be considered ‘controversial’ to some, it is my aim to provide a clearer understanding of Jesus and early Christianity.

Had I the space, I would spend time discussing methodology, philosophy of history, as well discussing the quality and quantity of the New Testament documents, and their transmission. However, given the focused and concise nature of a history dissertation, any treatment would have to be shortened for the sake of brevity, thus running the risk of being too superficial. I have thus chosen to omit such discussions, which can certainly be explored in future work. However, despite such restrictions, part of the subject matter under discussion does overlap partially in a few key areas. As such, I will comment on relevant issues, but not at the expense of running off-topic. I will be specifically commenting on ‘Higher Criticism,’ particularly ‘Form Criticism.’ The argument I will make is one that has been previously made by an American apologist named James Patrick Holding. It is his work that has inspired the subject matter of this dissertation.

His argument is that Christianity was so offensive to 1st century socio-cultural values that it could not possibly have succeeded unless there was convincing evidence that it were true. Holding, however, is not a historian, as his expertise is in library science. He has drawn upon the works of scholars, however, most notably that of the Context Group. It is my aim to explore this argument in more detail, and essentially present it in a more academic setting. Indeed, many of Holding’s critics have opined that he is not qualified to speak on the subject matter. Thus, it is my interest, as a historian, to test his argument and to fully develop his ideas along with my own. Some of my points will differ from Holding’s, of course, and I do reference some of the same material. I have, however, utilised a slightly wider variety of source material, most notably by providing primary examples in addition to the quotations of secondary works.

Chapter One: The First Century Socio-Cultural Landscape
To begin, it is first important to understand the kind of world in which 1st century Jews, Greeks, Romans, et al. lived. The first point to understand is that the people of the 1st century lived in a pre-industrial, or agrarian societies. To contrast, we today live primarily in industrial societies. There are considerable differences between these two types of society.[8] In agrarian societies, roughly 90% of the population were rural, whereas in industrial societies, roughly 90% of the population were urban. In agrarian societies between 90-95% of the population were engaged in farming, and the gathering of raw materials, etc. In industrial societies, less than 5% are engaged in these professions. Birth rates and birth mortality were higher in agrarian societies, whereas life expectancy and literacy rates were lower. These differences reflect more than just differences in levels of technological sophistication, however.

The physical reality of the ancient world meant that society operated a certain way, and certain cultural values were upheld and in ways vastly different to our own, although the traces of these socio-cultural values can still be seen in regions of the world today, particularly the Middle East, and the Mediterranean. One of the first major differences between agrarian society of the first century and modern Western society is that they lived in what anthropologists referred to as a high-context culture. What this means is that they presumed “a broadly shared, generally well-understood knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing.”[9] By contrast, we live in low-context societies where we often provide full details in our communication that can sometimes be excessive and extraneous.

To illustrate this difference in more depth, consider how one would go about relating an account of an event or set of events, and the people involved. A person from a high context society could describe a certain aspect of the story with only minimal details, as other members of their society would be able to ‘fill in the blanks,’ so to speak. I shall outline a few examples of this. Consider the following passage of Luke 1:35-36:

“And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will over-shadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.”[10]

Elizabeth’s barrenness is mentioned in passing, but what is not mentioned is the massive social stigma attached to barren women, as readers at the time would already have known such things.[11] We modern Western readers would be more concerned about the medical aspect, and presumably would have no idea about the social aspect that is actually the focus of the reported miracle.

Something similar occurs in Matthew 15:21-28, where Jesus has an encounter with a foreign (Canaanite) woman who is seeking healing for her demon-possessed daughter.[12] This story may seem puzzling to many modern Western readers, as Jesus initially ignores her, and when he does speak to her, he insults her publically.[13] Again, this account leaves out many details that first century readers would take for granted. Men and women did not talk to one another in public if they did not know each other, and rabbis would not even talk to their own female relatives in public. Thus, Jesus is breaking a big social taboo even by talking to her. There is much more to the story than this, but the point is that there are many details of this story absent in the text, simply because of the high context culture.

An interesting example occurs in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, where Josephus is discussing the actions of the high priest Ananus:

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[14]

The focus of this piece is on the action of the new high priest, Ananus, yet Josephus mentions in passing none other than Jesus. What is interesting is how Jesus is mentioned solely in order to introduce James, and is also referred to as being “called Christ.” The interesting thing is how Josephus makes no effort to explain whom Jesus was, or what the term Christ meant, implying he expected that his readers were already familiar with Jesus.[15] Since Josephus is writing to a Roman audience, he includes more detail than he would if he had been writing to his fellow Jews.

The writings of Paul are similarly littered with such examples. For example, he used hymns and creeds as shortcuts for more detailed knowledge. One such creed occurs in 1 Corinthians 15:

“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.”[16]

Such a creedal statement constituted a form of shorthand for more detailed knowledge that Paul’s readers would already have been familiar with, as they constitute a compressed version of the Gospel narrative. Such compression is something that can also be found in Roman writers. For example, in reference to Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome, Suetonius devoted a mere single sentence.[17]

This feature of agrarian societies in turn reflects and points to other features absent in modern Western society. Such a style of communication reflects the very close-knit inter-personal relationships that made up ancient societies. Ancient people were particularly group-oriented, or collectivist. What this means is that people considered themselves in terms of their group, and who they are is essentially determined by their interrelation with others within the group.[18] Your identity was derived from the whole of the group, and so how others within your group saw you was of paramount importance. As such, ancient people formed distinct, exclusive in-groups that were defined primarily by kinship. By kinship I don’t just mean close family, but a larger group that included those with the same ethnic heritage and mutual acquaintances.

Those within the in-group are able to have interpersonal relationships with one another, but those outside would be treated impersonally. Because of such collectivism, people did not see themselves as individuals, but as part of the group, and that they had no identity apart from their group. As such, if a person from one group was to have dealings with a member of another group, then both would walk away feeling that they knew everything there is to know about the other group.[19] Thus, one’s place of origin, your family lineage, and so on, were similarly important, as they were indicators of status.[20]

We can see examples of this element of ancient culture present throughout the New Testament. For example, in John 1:43-46, Phillip is trying to persuade Nathaniel to follow Jesus, saying: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”[21] Nathaniel’s response is simply to ask: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”[22] This was because that people were expected to act in accordance with their birth status, and so Nazareth, being a tiny and obscure village would hardly be considered capable of producing anyone of messianic status, thus making Jesus’ messianic credentials non-existent.[23] Interestingly, both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, as well as accounts of his birth taking place in Bethlehem. These genealogies contain many famous personages from the Hebrew Bible, and Bethlehem was the city of David. Thus, by linking Jesus to Bethlehem and famous personages from the Hebrew Bible, these are status claims about Jesus.

Another pertinent example occurs in Mark 6:3, where Jesus returns to Nazareth to teach at the Synagogue there. The crowd, however, are incredulous at how Jesus is so learned, and question his background:

“’Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?’ So they were offended at Him.”[24]

Note how they bring up his family of origin and blood relations, but also his former occupation as a carpenter. A manual craftsman such as a carpenter would not have had a particularly high status in such a society, and so Jesus’ profound teachings were not in line with his place within society.[25] However, there are more ways in which 1st century persons were different than this. Another significant difference is that social interaction revolved around honour and shame in such societies.

Honour and shame were pivotal values in the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean. Honour was essentially a combination of two factors: the value of a person in their own eyes, and the value of a person in the eyes of their social group. Honour is a claim to worth coupled with a social acknowledgement of that worth.[26] Your honour was determined by a number of different things, such as your gender, your occupation, your family, your ethnic background, and your place in the social ladder. Thus if you made a claim to honour that was above your standing, you would be publically rebuked. Honour could also be bestowed onto people of lower status from people of higher status. However, honour could also be acquired at another’s expense by engaging in challenge-riposte.[27] Essentially, it worked by someone publically challenging another, and the other person then having to defend their honour. Each participant goes back and forth until someone “loses.” This can be seen in the previous example of Mark 6:3. The people in the synagogue challenged Jesus, as his publically preaching was a status claim that elevated his honour. The reason why they are offended is because honour was seen as a limited good, and so if they granted Jesus honour, it would mean others in the community sacrificing honour.[28]

This account is mirrored and elaborated on in Luke 4:16-28. In this account, it includes more details, such as Jesus’ reading from a scroll of the book of Isaiah, and claimed that the prophecy he had just read was fulfilled in himself.[29] The prophecy in question comes from Isaiah 61:1-2, which was a Messianic prophecy.[30] By saying that he had fulfilled this prophecy, he was essentially claiming to be the Messiah, and so was claiming for himself a considerable amount of honour. However, more than this, Jesus left some verses out, and included some verses from elsewhere in Isaiah. His reading disagreed with the community’s standard reading, and also served as a rejection of Jewish nationalism of the day.[31] Whereas Jesus’ response is incredibly insulting, as he implies that outsiders are better able to judge the honour of a prophet than those who know him best.[32] Such a negative challenge merited an immediate response, however, the crowd are apparently unable to provide a response, as they quickly resort to violence by attempting to kill Jesus.[33]

Shame, on the other hand, was not necessarily a loss of honour, but rather was also an emotion one felt if they were dishonoured.[34] People who were shameless in this sense, were considered dishonourable people who fell beyond the parameters of normal daily life. Such persons were to be denied all normal social courtesies.[35] Thus, by addressing Jesus, the crowd at the synagogue are admitting Jesus as an equal, presumably because they were all from the same community, and thus probably were equals socially. It is Jesus’ negative response to their challenge, however, that causes them to seek violence against him. Jesus, by claiming messianic status, is dishonouring the community, but the question is, how? This leads me to another important socio-cultural value 1st century persons held.

Ancient persons believed that honour was a limited good, as I have mentioned previously, but what does this mean? This has to do with the physical reality of life in the 1st century. Roughly 98% of people back then would have found themselves “subject to the demands and sanctions of power-holders outside their social realm.”[36] It was an accepted fact of life to such peoples that they were under the governance of a remote power that they had no control over. As such, it was likewise accepted that they had little, if any, control over their living conditions. Such an existence was determined by limited natural resources, and limited social resources. Thus, it was widely considered by such peoples that all desired things in life were similarly limited.[37]

Honour, like wealth, was considered to be limited, and so thus it was perceived that honour was in limited supply. From this viewpoint, since honour was seen as limited, it meant that whenever someone accrued honour, in the eyes of 1st century persons, it meant somebody else lost honour.[38] Thus, if people wanted to retain their honour, then they had to engage in challenge-riposte, as aforementioned. There are plenty of examples of Jesus engaging in such riposte throughout the Gospel accounts, including the previously cited encounter in the Nazareth synagogue. This may came as a surprise to some, but Jesus did not pull any punches when it came to heated discussions with his ideological enemies, such as the Pharisees. Whilst I have already sufficiently described and explained the counter-riposte dynamic, what I want to focus on now is how this relates to other concepts.

One important concept that is impacted by an agrarian socio-cultural outlook is that of love. When we read the New Testament, specifically Jesus’ command to love our enemies and so on, we typically assume a Western definition of love. It may surprise modern readers to know, but in such societies, love was characterised differently. In our individualistic Western societies, love is typically held to refer to positive inner emotion and feelings towards persons and objects. Whilst this definition may not be exhaustive, the important aspect here is that love is an internal feeling, whereas in agrarian societies, love is centred on actions rather than emotions.[39] To love someone was to be attached and bonded to someone, and in such societies you did not love someone if your actions did not reflect it. Furthermore, spontaneous displays of such emotion, as well as holding certain emotions to be polarised extremes with no middle ground were a common part of such societies.[40]

Whilst such love between persons may or may not have involved the warm feelings traditionally associated with love in modern Western cultures, the main point to understand is that love in agrarian societies did not require such feelings. This was because an open display of emotion, typically spontaneous, was merely one way of showing love. Moreover, group bonding and social cohesion were valued over individual satisfaction and needs, reflecting the centrality of group-centeredness in such societies. As such, one important manifestation of mutual love “was a staunch refusal to do what will bring harm to one’s kin (all the more as this, ultimately, is to harm oneself.)”[41] Thus, whilst one might show love in a way we would identify as loving, it was possible to show love in a way that we would normally find unloving.

Since a person’s identity was ultimately grounded in and derived from group identity, as well as their place within it, actions would be taken to preserve the unity of the group as a functional whole. Corrective measures would be enacted against social deviants within the group, even against family members by family members.

“The group would exercise measures designed to shame the transgressor (whether through insult, reproach, physical abuse, confiscation of property – at worst, execution) so that the transgressor would be pressured into returning to the conduct the group approved (if correction were possible) and so that group members would have their aversion to committing such transgressions themselves strongly reinforced.”[42]

Before such social persecution would take place, then family members would certainly confront those were perceived as stepping outside of societal norms. This kind of ‘tough love’ is more in line with agrarian concepts of love rather than the modern Western conception.

I shall give some examples now of the challenge-riposte dynamic in use, which should hopefully illustrate some of the peculiarities of inter-personal relationships in the 1st century that I have discussed so far. One prominent example is Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees, of which I shall cite just a few. A subtle example occurs in Matthew 12, where the Pharisees are confronting Jesus over the fact that his disciples are plucking heads of grain for food on the Sabbath.[43] Jesus responds by asking them if they had read about how David entered the temple and ate the bread reserved only for priests. This may not seem like it, but this is actually a tremendous insult to the Pharisees. These were highly educated, religiously trained men who knew the Hebrew Scriptures well! Of course they knew about the account that Jesus was referring to.

Another example occurs in Matthew 12:34, where Jesus addresses the Pharisees as follows: “Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”[44] This might seem confusing to Christians, who know well the commands to turn the other cheek, and so on. However, the reality is, such verbal sparring is not necessarily antithetical to love in such societies. As I have already mentioned, there was a strong emphasis on action in such societies. Feelings, in order to be considered genuine, had to be backed up by action. We see in the New Testament text, multiple reports of the Pharisees plotting against Jesus. They are usually seen trying to trick Jesus, and generally trying to do bad things to him. Jesus, however, whilst certainly not afraid of verbally challenging them, did not return such actions.

Thus, whilst the Pharisees were Jesus’ ideological enemies, Jesus did not seek harm against them, whilst at the same time directing riposte towards them. I shall now give examples of Jesus directing such riposte towards his disciples. One pertinent example occurs in Matthew 16:21-23, where Jesus is telling his disciples that he must be killed. Peter challenges Jesus, saying that such a thing would not happen, and Jesus responds by saying: “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offence to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”[45] People today would probably consider that a harsh and unloving reprimand, yet such a rebuke is in line with collectivist expressions of love. Another example occurs in Mark 4:35-41, where they are sailing with Jesus and end up sailing into a storm. They wake Jesus in a panic, only for him to rebuke them for not trusting him.[46]

Such usage of challenge-riposte is continued by the Early Church Fathers, the successors to the New Testament authors. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, referring to heretics, wrote the following:

“I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.”[47]

Deliberately withholding the name of the person you were referring to was a way of shaming people in such societies, and was incredibly insulting. A modern parallel may be found in the way a parent today might reprimand a child who has come close to harm. Such expressions were simply far more common in the ancient near east, and across a range of relationships. This was most likely the case because of how close-knit social groups were in the 1st century, and also due to the action-centred nature of emotional expression.

However, it is important to note that such rhetorical exchanges were limited to the public sphere of daily life. As we can see, inter-personal communication was very different in ancient societies than in our society, something that can be seen in the writing styles of authors from the time. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that such societies were primarily oral societies. Obviously, most people in the 1st century could not read or write, and so the primary means of communication would have been speech, rather than writing. When we analyse ancient documents, we can see clues and evidence that point to this. The Gospels are no exception, and we can see evidence of the oral origin for these documents. As aforementioned, challenge-riposte was limited to public exchanges.

As such, we can expect to find such exchanges in written reports of speech. However, we also see ancient writers employing such rhetoric in their own writing. This is because authors “expected their compositions to be read aloud to a gathered community, who would, in turn, use that material to establish a dialogue between themselves and, especially in the case of a letter, with the reader, who was often the writer’s official representative.”[48] This was certainly true of the New Testament documents. The use of hyperbole was also relatively common in addition to the use of rhetoric. One example includes the aforementioned polarisation of emotions as opposites. This can be seen in Luke 14 where Jesus says: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”[49] Such a command was not meant to be taken literally. Such hyperbole was simply a part of the culture. Jesus is simply saying that you must put worldly relationships in second place to your relationship with God in order to be a true disciple.

The reason for the utilisation of such literary devices, in speech as well as writing, is that they made what the speaker was saying stand out more in the minds of the listeners. When we analyse the New Testament documents, we see a variety of such literary devices geared towards making the content memorable. Jesus often utilised stunning words and images, often hyperbolic, which would stand out in the minds of his listeners. Examples of such vivid word pictures can be seen when Jesus says: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you;”[50] and: “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”[51] Like the previously cited examples, these were not literal commands, but figures of speech to ensure that the message being conveyed stuck in the minds of the listeners.

Jesus also used riddles and paradoxical images, for example Jesus uses the following riddle to describe his upcoming resurrection:

“Jesus answered and said to them, ”Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”[52]

In order to teach his disciples about the meaning of charity, Jesus contrasts a poor widow with the wealthy, saying: “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury.”[53] Further use of memorisation devices includes the use of proverbs, such as Mark 3:24: “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”[54] These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they should give an idea of the effects orality had on writing.

This by no means guaranteed verbatim recall, yet this is in line with what we know of ancient oral cultures. The utilisation of memorisation techniques and devices allowed for remembrance of the core message rather than the exact wording. Thus:

“…to apply the concept of original and copy to ancient documents is anachronistic… we must abandon the modern concept of authenticity and the modern requirement of exact verbatim correspondence down to the very punctuation.”[55]

This also helps shed light on the textual transmission of the New Testament texts. It is well-known that the canonical Gospels were written decades after the events they describe. Whilst contemporaneous reports are by no means the only valid historical documents, nonetheless, some have questioned why the Gospel authors would have waited so long to write these events down.

Given the oral nature of societies, there was no need to write down the Gospels right away. The utilisation of memorisation techniques combined with the fact that these accounts were constantly being relayed meant that the accounts would have been fresh in the authors’ minds. Presumably, the Gospels were written near the end of the authors’ lifetimes, to act as controls when they were no longer around themselves to act as authorities. This is where I would like to briefly spend some time discussing form criticism. Form criticism correctly operates along the basis that the Gospels originated orally yet makes the highly questionable assumption that, once the New Testament oral traditions began circulating, they automatically became the property of the community and subject to change.

Whilst this is going to be by no means going to be a full treatment of the arguments of Form Criticism, I do wish to briefly summarise some key points that stand against one of its core assumptions. Now, a brief summary of oral cultures in general does little to support this central premise of radical alteration as part of collective ownership. When we look at oral cultures from around the world, we typically see them as being geared towards memorisation, with rather little in the way of variation.[56] It is important to stress that this does not necessarily involve verbatim memorisation, however. One example is that of Yugoslavian bards, where becoming a skilled practitioner involved learning enough of the material so that they could shape their performance from the material that they remembered.[57] One particularly interesting example is that of Fijian dance songs, which were memorised, rehearsed, and subject to peer critique because there was a strong emphasis on divine inspiration that did not allow for personal interpretation.[58]

The closest example I could find of wilful invention occurred in African Storytelling. Individuals would observe and remember what they had seen of an experience, from which a generally agreed upon explanation of the event’s significance would arise (although better told and more noteworthy experiences might survive two to three lifetimes.) Favourable and opposing parties would then circulate their own interpretations of the event, all of which could co-exist for up to 120-150 years before being formulated into a more highly structured account that was considered historically satisfactory to all. This would take up to 300 years, and more skilled historians and storytellers would invent details that would add lucidity to the accounts.[59] So, this is a centuries long process that still involved memorisation of core details. What changed were small details, in an effort to provide a general all-encompassing account.

When we turn to specifically ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures, however, we find even less to support the idea that such alteration was widespread or even common. In fact, what we find severely undercuts the very thing that Form Criticism assumes is part and parcel of oral tradition. Ancient study methods placed a high value on the preservation of ancient traditions. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, students were required to copy, memorise and recite a core curriculum in order to become well versed in their cultural tradition. Greeks too also placed a high value on recitation and memorisation. A sample of Greek memory retention techniques can be found in Aristotle’s On Memory and Reminiscence. One such example is the use of acrostics, for example early Greek Christians used the word icthus to give the message: Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour.[60]

The Romans too used a variety of memorisation techniques in order to train public speakers, and teachers, since these professions required practitioners to memorise vast amounts if information. It seems as if there were a variety of approaches, however. Some orators memorised quotations from classical literature and used those to form their own speeches, others composed their speeches and memorised the wording verbatim, and others simply memorised the core arrangement and structure of their speech.[61] In Israelite culture, religious education was particular important for pious families. Boys were taught from an early age at their local synagogue to read, write, and even to expound upon scripture. Disciples of religious leaders furthermore were not just learners, but were also called upon to memorise and recite the material they were taught.[62]

When we consider that Jesus was indeed a religious teacher with disciples, it seems not just unlikely, but in direct contradiction to the evidence that Jesus’ followers would not have remembered his teachings, or that they would have freely edited and changed them. The presence of mnemonic devices in the very text points to an ordered and controlled transmission that stands in total contrast to the imaginings of the form critics. Again, I wish to stress that this is but a summary treatment, and is not as in-depth as I would like due to limitations of space. This is by no means a full critique, however, my arguments here can certainly be expanded upon in future work.

Chapter Two: Christianity and 1st Century Values
We have so far looked at core socio-cultural values of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean. Now we are going to look at ways in which Christianity related to and also came into conflict with these values, and what this implies for future study of ancient Christianity. What struck me the most was just how incompatible Christianity was with mainstream values. As Nagle and Burstein point out:

“That there was an intrinsic incompatibility between Christianity and classical values was apparent from the time Romans became aware of the presence of the new religion. Christians were criticized on a variety of grounds, but principally because they had rejected the gods of their ancestors and the civic values of the Greco-Roman world. Their religion was new; they had turned away from the traditions of their immediate ancestors, the Jews… In short, they did not fit into the system that had been sanctioned by centuries of classical use.”[63]

It is probably hard for individuals to grasp just how important a fact and a reality that this was. Even more interesting is how even scholars overlook or do not fully understand the implications of this. I shall do my best to expound on these issues now.

I shall begin with probably the biggest obstacle that lay between Christianity and potential converts, that of the crucifixion of Jesus. As I have mentioned extensively in the first chapter, the world of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean was an honour/shame-focused society. Crucifixion was the worst method of execution available at the time, reserved for the most heinous of criminals (at least in the eyes of the Roman state.) As such, it was an “utterly offensive affair, ‘obscene’ in the original sense of the word”[64] and a “status degradation ritual.”[65] It was meant to signify the victim’s loss of power, as well as the Roman state signifying its authority over them, as well as leading to other humiliating things, such as self-defecation. It was such an offensive affair that most pagan writers were simply too revolted to write about the subject, and the accounts we do have aren’t particularly detailed.

Crucifixion, furthermore, took on a new dimension in Judaism, in that the victim was considered cursed by God:

“…his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day; for he who is hanged on a tree is accursed of God; that you do not defile land the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.”[66]

Various critics of Christianity, such as Celsus and Lucian of Samosata noted with malicious delight and pleasure the shamefulness of Jesus’ death.[67] Their sentiments were also shared by members of the lower classes, as is evidenced by a piece of graffiti depicting a man kneeling before a crucified figure with the head of an ass, with the caption “Alexamenos worships god.”[68] Indeed, the shamefulness of Jesus’ death was acknowledged by early Christian writers, such as Paul and Justin Martyr.[69]

As deSilva notes “no member of the Jewish community or the Greco-Roman society would have come to faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God’s perspective on what kind of behaviour merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of humans beings…”[70] Both the Jewish and Roman authorities had assessed Jesus as being worthy of a shameful death, yet the Gospel narratives claim that God overturned this assessment by raising Jesus from the grave. Such a message was totally at odds with well-established beliefs regarding honour accrual and shameful behaviour. This alone should have been more than enough to stop Christianity from spreading beyond its original members. Yet, not only did Christianity secure a sizeable number of Jewish converts, it spread to the Greek and Roman gentile population also.

This dishonouring of Jesus by the Jewish and Roman authorities did not simply end with his death by crucifixion, however. Even in death, Jesus would have been further shamed. As scholar Byron McCane notes:

“By burying the dead and mourning their absence, members of a society affirm that someone significant had been lost. When the Romans did not permit the burial of crucifixion victims, then, they were doing more than merely showing off the power of Rome: they were also declaring that the deaths of these victims were not a loss to Roman society.”[71]

When we come to the Gospel narratives, however, they claim that Jesus was in fact buried, and by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea. Are the Gospels, therefore, trying to suggest that Jesus was buried honourably? It would seem odd indeed if this were the case, especially given that the Gospels depict Jesus’ crucifixion, but the reality is more complex than this.

Whilst crucifixion victims were typically left on their crosses to be eaten by birds, sometimes the Romans did allow them to be buried for various reasons. One might wonder why a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would petition to have Jesus buried. The Gospels narratives seem to suggest that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of Jesus who utilised his position with the Sanhedrin to fulfil this task so that he could secretly honour Jesus. This is indeed a possibility, but when we consider that it was prohibited in Judaism to leave a man hanging on a tree, then it would make sense for them, being observant religious Jews, to have Jesus buried. Indeed, by being allowed to bury Jesus, they would have been able to dishonour Jesus in their own way, and in a way that was not against the precepts of their religion.

How then, was such a burial dishonourable? Because he was buried away from his family tomb:

“To be buried away from the family tomb – by design, not by fate – was to be cast adrift from these cultural patterns, and dislodged from a place in the family.”[72]

Thus, by purposively being buried away from his family tomb, Jesus was indeed buried in shame. This has been challenged, however, most notably by eminent scholar William Lane Craig. Craig has argued that the language employed in the New Testament accounts suggests that Joseph of Arimathea used care in Jesus’ burial, and was trying to honour Jesus as a secret disciple.[73] Furthermore, Craig has challenged the idea that being buried away from the family tomb as being necessarily shameful, arguing that Jesus died in Jerusalem miles from his relatives, and that poor individuals could hardly afford a family tomb.[74]

The problem with these arguments is that they do nothing to challenge the contention that being buried away from the family tomb on purpose was shameful. If we accept that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple, then we are still met with the fact that the Gospel narratives state he buried Jesus away from his family tomb. We can accept that he may have done his best to honour Jesus secretly, but this would not have mitigated the dishonour of being buried away from the family tomb. Thus, we can freely accept Joseph of Arimathea being a secret disciple of Jesus, who did his best to honour Jesus, but ultimately this would not have been enough to counteract the dishonour. So, whilst Craig is right in the points he makes, they do not undercut the proposition that Jesus’ burial was dishonourable. Whereas, there is good evidence that such a burial would have been considered dishonourable when we consider the collectivist nature of such societies, and the strong emphasis on familial ties already discussed.

Interestingly enough, one other feature of Jesus’ burial would have been considered shameful, and that would have been the stationing of the guards outside the tomb. Such a guard would have been put in place by the state authorities in order to deny people from mourning at Jesus’ tomb. As McCane states: “…[t]o be unmourned by one’s nearest relatives was to be effaced from the cultural landscape. It was worse than unfortunate, it was a shame.”[75] Thus, we are met by the very interesting case that the Gospels relate very culturally embarrassing details, and not only that, make these details the centre-piece of Christian faith. As the early Church Father Justin Martyr noted: “…they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God…”[76] The crucifixion of Jesus is multiply attested by a variety of sources[77], with the Gospels being the most detailed of these, and the Gospels likewise contain additional culturally embarrassing details that nonetheless fit in with what we know about the practices of that time.

One may wonder, then, how Christianity ever got off of the ground. However, there are even more factors that would have made Christianity even more unappealing than this. Jesus and his disciples were Jews, and Christianity essentially began as a Jewish sect. As such, it becomes hard to explain how it was able to successfully take hold amongst Greeks and Romans. The reason for this is because, Jews were typically viewed by the Romans and Greeks as being spiteful and superstitious. Romans in particular viewed their own system of beliefs as being superior to all others, viewing superstition (which Jewish beliefs were categorised as) as undermining the social order.[78] The area of Galilee in particular was held in low view by Jews and non-Jews alike. To Jews, it was an area associated with farmers and ignorant yokels who knew little of the Torah, and to non-Jews it was infamous as being home to a number of Jewish rebels.[79]

In addition to being a Jew from an area of ill-repute, Jesus was also from Nazareth, a city of absolutely no significance whatsoever. He was also a carpenter, which was regarded as a lowly and dishonourable profession, and associated with fishermen, tax collectors, and prostitutes, who were similarly held in low regard. Moreover, the Gospel accounts state that the first to discover Jesus’ empty tomb were some of Jesus’ female disciples. In the 1st century, women were second class citizens, and their testimony was considered worthless.[80] By placing the female disciples as the first witnesses to the empty tomb, the Gospels writers are admitting an incredibly culturally embarrassing detail. However, most of the male disciples would have been in a similar position, since most of them were of low social standing, and so the value of their testimony would be substantially lowered as a result.[81]

Jesus was a rural peasant of low social standing in a world run by wealthy urbanites. He hailed from a city of low repute, in an area with a bad reputation, and he was of a people group that were despised by Greeks and Romans. He associated with undesirables, and was executed by the Roman State via crucifixion and was buried in shame. Furthermore, the chief witnesses to his alleged resurrection were women and country bumpkins. These alone should have been enough to bury Christianity, regardless of its teachings and doctrines. Yet, there are even more problems Christianity had to face. Christianity had the immediate problem of being new. Whilst in modern Western culture, people tend to favour novelty over tradition, in the ancient world, this was very much the opposite. Traditions handed down across generations from antiquity were regarded as the ideal standards of past generations of great personages that one was expected to live up to.[82] Whilst the Romans recognised the antiquity of Judaism, Christians were regarded as “arrogant innovators.”[83]

Christianity likewise made considerable ethical demands upon the individual that would simply have been unattractive to prospective converts. Ancient pagan cults typically appealed to people’s baser instincts, involving temple prostitutes, drunken parties, etc. Whereas Christianity called one to live a life of restraint. Ignoring worldly pleasures so that one can grow closer to God. Furthermore, Jesus was not just some deity that could simply be incorporated into the existing pantheon. As with Judaism, Christianity required its followers to be devoted to one deity and to one deity alone:

“The message about this Christ was incompatible with the most deeply rooted religious ideology of the Gentile world, as well as the more recent message propagated in Roman imperial ideology.”[84]

So, not only was Christianity massively culturally disadvantaged, its teachings were largely unappealing to non-Jews. Christianity would also have been unpopular due to claiming a man, Jesus, as being God, which would have been offensive to Jews and non-Jews alike.[85]

We may also want to consider the alleged mode of Jesus’ vindication. The Gospels make a very specific claim in this regard, they claim that the God of Israel resurrected Jesus. This was a very specific mode of vindication that should not be confused with other means of living after or returning from death. In Jewish belief, resurrection was the returning of the dead to life and immediate transformation into un-perishing forms. Thus, this was not to simply re-animated, or even restored to your normal human form. You were essentially transformed into a new, immortal state. In his landmark work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright documents various Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs regarding life after death.[86] He notes that resurrection was not something believed to happen to just anybody. Resurrection was believed to be what awaited observant, religious Jews at the end of time.

Typical modes of pre-resurrection vindication for Jewish heroes usually involved being returned from death to their previous human form, or being bodily assumed into heaven directly. The belief in the resurrection at the end of time may not even have been a particularly widespread belief, given that there were prominent Jewish sects, such as the Sadducees, who did not believe in any form of life after death whatsoever. In the pagan world of the Greeks and Romans, however, a physical return from death to life was not something hoped for or imagined at all. Those who believed in afterlife hoped for a disembodied existence as a spirit, free from the material world as matter was considered ‘evil.’ The most common belief was simply that death was final. They most certainly did not think that a return from death to a physical form was something to look forward to. Resurrection was simply unattractive to non-Jews, and a resurrection occurring to a single individual prior to the general resurrection would have been hard for Jews to swallow.

Now, some have claimed that belief in a physically resurrected Jesus evolved from a belief that Jesus simply ‘lived on’ spiritually after his death.[87] Given the socio-cultural data and the religious beliefs of the time, this makes absolutely no sense since existence in a disembodied spiritual state would have been easier for non-Jews to swallow. Furthermore, why was resurrection, a specific mode of vindication reserved for the end of time, chosen as the mode of Jesus’ vindication when there were more palatable options at hand? Moreover, why would a Jewish offshoot choose a form of life after death so out of sync with Jewish traditional beliefs? This is not even taking into account Jesus’ dishonourable status that he would have had after his death. It seems hard to imagine how such a mode of vindication would become associated with such an individual, and that belief in it would become so widespread.

Even aside from being culturally offensive, massively off-putting, and just plain bizarre to 1st century people, there would have been a price for following Christianity. By becoming a part of such a socially deviant movement, you risked being cut off from your social networks, most important amongst these being your family group.[88] In the ancient world, this was no laughing matter, but one that had serious implications. As noted by Malina and Rohrbaugh: “…[s]uch a departure from the family was morally impossible in a society where the kinship unit was the focal social institution.”[89] Furthermore, leaving the family meant forsaking material goods, since: “…[g]eographical mobility and the consequent break with one’s social network (biological family, patrons, friends, neighbours) were considered seriously deviant behaviour and would have been much more traumatic in antiquity than simply leaving behind material wealth…”[90]

Christianity taught that it was acceptable to break family ties rather than give up your faith, which would have been a radical, outlandish proposition in the ancient world. Furthermore, it encouraged the breaking down of class distinctions, and promoted inter-racial relations, and also a higher place for women in society. It encouraged better treatment towards slaves, as well as suggesting that slaves were on the same standing as free-men. It is amusing that sometimes you will find critics of Christianity today complain that it did not clearly teach against the institution of slavery, whilst simultaneously making the argument that Christianity was popular amongst the lower classes because it promoted freedom from oppression. The statements Christianity did make were certainly radical for their time, and would have led to slave-owners giving up their slaves once they became Christians. Whereas, such statements, believe it or not, would NOT have been widely popular, even amongst slaves, as: “…[w]hen ancient Mediterraneans speak of 'freedom,' they generally understand the term as both freedom from slavery to one lord or master, and freedom to enter the service of another lord or benefactor...”[91]

As noted in the first chapter, measures would be taken by one’s social group against you if you were deemed to be socially deviant. Such social persecution would have been widespread and immediate, with the goal of shaming you into returning to the accepted norms of the group. Given that such hard demands were placed on the individual and given the social hardships that would have followed, it becomes hard to see how Christianity spread beyond a handful of adherents. Christianity should have died out relatively quickly, but instead it survived and is now currently the world’s largest religion. Some form of explanation is thus in order. Contrary to the claims of modern critics, 1st century people were not narrow-minded simpletons who were easily swayed. In order for Christianity to have taken hold the way it did, there would have had to have been some convincing kind of evidence in order to overturn the cultural perception and social biases against it.

There is one factor about 1st century Near Eastern and Mediterranean culture that I have yet to mention, and it is one that is central to my argument here. In group-oriented societies and cultures “we must remember that people continually mind each other’s business.”[92] Privacy was simply non-existent in such societies, as neighbours were expected to keep constant watch and constant vigilance over each other whilst simultaneously worrying about how they themselves appeared to others. In such a society, where nothing escaped notice, are we to believe that nobody would have checked the facts, especially when it came to such a radical religion as Christianity? Quite the contrary, people hearing the message of Christianity would have made efforts to seek the facts out, since, if the facts were not on the side of Christianity, then that would have been used to control the spread of the new movement.

It is thus my contention that Christianity would not have been able to succeed and flourish in such a hostile environment, unless there were some sort of convincing evidence that it were, in fact, true. Furthermore, there was no major editing of Christianity to make it more palatable, since its central claims were majorly offensive to cultural values. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose the stories were simply made up, since who in their right mind would have engineered such a story in an environment fundamentally hostile to such ideas? This is, of course, not even taking into consideration the other evidence that counters these two suppositions of modern critics, since I have, from the start, limited myself to discussing the socio-cultural data of the 1st century Mediterranean and Near East. This is by no means a conclusive ‘slam-dunk’ proof of any kind, but it is nonetheless a powerful argument, and one that deserves to be taken seriously.

Conclusions
My argument, and the central premise of this dissertation, builds upon the socio-cultural data of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean. Christianity was a religion that was hard, unattractive, and offensive to the socio-cultural values of its day, but nonetheless flourished. Given the hostility of such an environment, and the fact that persons such a group-oriented culture would have inevitably sought the claims of Christianity out, there must have been convincing evidence available that allowed Christianity to succeed. For if there were no evidence for Christianity, or worse, evidence that stood against Christianity, then it would have stood no chance at all and would have quickly been marginalised and eventually crushed. This is no doubt a highly controversial and explosive argument, and is also presumably going to be an unpopular one. However, I have based my argument on actual socio-cultural data.

As aforementioned, this argument is hardly decisive proof that Christianity is, in fact, true. It might be an argument in its favour, but it needs to be tested, and, moreover, combined with other academic areas, such as textual criticism, philosophy of religion and so on. It, does, however, underscore recent moves in Biblical studies away from the arguments and conclusions of Form Criticism and its adherents, and undercuts the arguments of many of today’s critics. Such an argument also reflects the recent renaissance of Christianity in academic fields, and the influx of serious-minded Christian scholars, most particularly in philosophy and Biblical studies. In the field of philosophy, scholars such as William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga have been developing sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. Plantinga has developed a unique version of Anselm of Canterbury’s Ontological argument, using modal language and framing the argument in terms of possible words.

Craig has developed a powerful version of Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali’s Kalam Cosmological argument, taking new evidence from the field of astrophysics and cosmology to provide a scientific backing. In the field of Biblical studies, textual scholars such as Dan Wallace, and Michael Licona have provided convincing evidence for the overall reliability of the New Testament textual tradition. What needs to be done is to factor in these things together and weigh them as a whole. Christian apologists have long been seeking data across a variety of disciplines to provide a case, even going so far as to research psychology and physiology to determine whether the resurrection appearances could have been hallucinations and if Jesus could have survived crucifixion. It is now time for these issues to be discussed openly and fully, alongside the socio-cultural data I have outlined here. Further areas to be looked out, however, include seeing whether or not other religions survived the same level of hostility Christianity faced, without being radically altered.

Whilst paltry comparisons have been made between Christianity and variety of other religions before, albeit mostly in non-academic circles such as Internet discussion forums, no analysis has been made in terms of what difficulties these religions faced at their inception, and whether or not they had any advantages in their favour. We also need to look at the history of how these religions spread, as well as if they had to change to accommodate for public opinion and reaction towards them. For example, if a religion or cult had to change radically in order to survive, then it does not compare whatsoever. Whereas, if it can be shown that a religion survived the same level of hostility that Christianity faced, with being radically altered, and with no advantages in its favour, then that would totally undercut my argument.

To give a brief rundown then, in my first chapter I provided a general survey of the socio-cultural background of the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean, providing examples within the text of the New Testament itself, as well as other texts from the same era. I specifically drew on the work of scholars Kenneth Bailey, David deSilva, Bruce Malina, Jerome Neyrey, and Richard Rohrbaugh in particular, as well as citing works by others who have come to the same conclusions. We saw that the 1st century culture was agrarian, and thus collectivist, and honour-shame focused. I also briefly discussed 1st century oral tradition, and noted how the conclusions of Form Criticism stand in contrast to the nature of 1st century Jewish and Greco-Roman oral culture. In the second chapter, I noted ways in which Christianity came into conflict with those values, drawing upon the data mentioned in the first chapter. The argument presented is essentially the same as one that has been made by American apologist James Patrick Holding, albeit with refinements.

Holding has drawn on the same group of scholars, yet his examples of 1st century socio-cultural values are more truncated for sake of presentation to a popular audience. After surveying the data in more depth, I have come to the same conclusion. However, in addition to supporting this main argument in favour of the truth of Christianity, I have likewise made arguments against Form Criticism and other forms of anti-Christian scepticism. Form Criticism suggests that Christianity evolved from a pre-existing ‘pure’ form that was freely edited and altered by different communities. Not only have I shown evidence that the oral culture would not have permitted such a thing, but it defies reason why Christianity would have evolved into such an offensive religion. It also defies reason that such an offensive religion was simply made up, since it would have gotten its adherents persecuted and even killed, as indeed Christians were. The plausibility of alternate hypotheses, such as hallucinations, need to be analysed in the same terms also.

This could definitely be explored at a higher level in future work. If given the opportunity, I would definitely like to build upon my work here on the MA and PhD level. I could pursue any number of avenues discussed thus far. Perhaps the most obvious choice would be to take a look at other religions, their origins, and history to see if they survived anything comparable to what Christianity went through and without being majorly altered. A second avenue of future research would also be to factor in textual analyses of the New Testament in comparison to other ancient documents, as well as in terms of its oral history and development away from the outdated patterns of the long since defunct Form Criticism.

I would furthermore also would like to take a look at methodological concerns, specifically factoring in recent developments and arguments from philosophy in regards to historiography and epistemology, given that there are those who insist that resurrection is a subject incapable of being analysed via historical research. Recent work by philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga regarding warranted belief, and the work of scholars such as William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona in regards to the philosophy of history would be of particular interest here. In closing, this is certainly an interesting topic that has opened up a variety of new avenues of enquiry, and should hopefully stimulate great academic debate. It is my intention in particular to get scholars thinking about these issues in more depth, and to work together to address the questions and concerns that will no doubt arise.